Is there B&W 120 films above 400??

[do_do1]

I'm having difficulty locating any B&W 120 film over 400 speed...

I'm wondering why -- what types are there in 800 or 1600?

[gaius1]

There's Ilford Delta 3200, but no TMZ. Some folk say that the Delta is better shot at 1600 anyway... and at 800 you might as well use HP5+ or Tri-X.

[bacsa]

I shoot delta3200 at 3200; the negs are indeed thin but the essence is there. Just don't expect magnificent shadow details.

 

Some folks prefer pushing tri-x to extreme speeds, 6400 or even more.

[eric friedemann]

"I shoot delta 3200 at 3200; the negs are indeed thin but the essence is there. Just don't expect magnificent shadow details."

 

 

You, sir, are the Master of Understatement. If you shoot either the Delta or TMAX 3200 films at 3200 and develop at 3200, your negatives will unuseable or barely useable. If I were going to shoot either film at 3200, I'd develop at 6400.

 

 

Without arguing about whether these films are accurately rated in the first place, I've shot these films at 1600 and have had them developed at 3200. This extra stop of exposure yields negatives of normal density, with adequate shadow detail and less-noticeable grain.

[bueh]

Due to a handling mistake (accidently turned the aperture ring while changing films) I had to push Agfa Agfapan APX 400 to ISO 3200 (+3 stops). My girlfriend recently shot Kodak Portra 400NC at ISO 3200, too. In both cases the results were fine.<p>

In B/W you can expose about every 400 speed film at ISO 800 or 1600 and still get great pictures if you develop it correctly. As Csab noted, <b><a href="http://www.photosig.com/go/users/viewportfolio;jsessionid=aO7EohAcqsy_?id=98611" target="_new">some folks</a></b> really love to play with Tri-X and push it up to ISO 102,400 (+8 stops!).

[sammm]

I've shot Delta 3200 as high as 6400, and have seen good work done with it as high as 12,500 - but you have to be going for a particular grainy look, preferably with a very low-key feel. Some examples are in my portfolio; some better examples (and examples going all the way to 12,500) are in Emil Schildt's portfolio.

 

If you use the dr5 process (www.dr5.com), you can shoot HP5 at ultra-high speeds and get some very good, much less grainy results (though this delivers a b+w positive rather than a printable negative). I've gone to 1600 with good results.

[sammm]

Wow, Tri-X pushed past 100,000. Thanks, Bueh - I may have to try that.

[bw]

I have shot Delta 3200 @ 3200 and have been positively surpised with the result.

 

http://www.thestate.dk/upload/pic/the_state004.jpg

 

When I looked at the neg I thought there was no hope. I scanned my negs but I believe they would be difficult to work with in a darkroom.

 

I have also pulled Delta 3200 to 800 with nice results.

http://www.brettwall.mongreltrek.com/images/ragz.jpg

[OCULUS New York]

Agfa Scala is variable, up to 1600, I think, but I have never tried it that high. It can be processed as negative film, but have never tried that either. Great reversal film though, if you don't mind sending it away to a couple of select US labs.

 

Ray Hull

[brian_c._miller]

I've easily pushed <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/688330">Tmax 400 to 3200</a>. In order to get useable results you have to develop the film yourself. Any lab will give you negatives which will have horrendous contrast. The best scenes for these films will be lit with very soft light. You will also have huge grain. You may get more shadow detail by using agitation of once every minute or less.

[do_do1]

So basically generally it's not recommended to process pushed/pulled films at a lab? Even for negatives not just prints?

[gaius1]

The only films I would trust to a lab are C41, K14 and E6, shot as rated.

[eric friedemann]

"I have also pulled Delta 3200 to 800 with nice results."

 

 

Delta "3200" actually has an ISO rating of 1000. So you can pull it down to 400 if you need to:

 

 

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/delta3200.pdf

 

 

"So basically generally it's not recommended to process pushed/pulled films at a lab?"

 

 

Here's the thing, most labs that run traditional B&W film do so in C-41 roller transport developing machines that are dedicated to B&W developing. The problem is that these machines can only keep the film in the developer for three minutes or so, when a film like Delta 3200 is designed to be developed for 5 and 1/2 to 20 minutes. See chart linked to above.

 

 

In order to accomplish the developing, the lab uses Acumat or some other high-energy developer. This sort of developing yields negatives with awful tonal ranges.

 

 

So, to properly develop traditional B&W film in a lab setting, the lab needs to use a dip-and-dunk machine that can accomodate better developers and leave the film in the developer longer. See generally:

 

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml

 

 

Dip-and-dunk machines are costly and take up space. Few labs have the traditional B&W film volume to make dedicating such a machine to B&W developing cost-effective; and the ones that do charge a premium for such developing.

 

 

Long story short, for films like TMAX 3200 and Delta 3200, you will be better off developing at home. You will be able to give the film the time and attention it needs doing hand-developing.

[sammm]

I have labs do most of my B&W developing, but have found only a few labs do truly good work with these films. Dw5 (esp. for HP5, Efke), A+I, and Films for Classics (inconsistent - they use a couple of labs, and I've gotten really great developing and just so-so developing) have been best for me; for a heavily pushed film, I'd stick to Dw5 or A+I.

[do_do1]

Did you mean Dr5?

[sammm]

Yes, dr5. Thanks.

[brian_c._miller]

Do Do, once you have processed the film to produce a good negative, then the lab can print it as normal. However, some labs do not use b&w paper, they balance their color heads for color paper. It would be a good idea to ask if the lab uses b&w paper before getting the film printed.

 

If you have any space at all, you can set up your own darkroom. My darkroom is my (small) bathroom, and my enlarger is on a cart I made myself. Its pretty easy to learn the basics of printing, and you'll have a lot of fun doing it.

[jmf]

For that matter, I think Kodak states in the fine print that their 3200 film is really 1600 that can be pushed. I've pushed tri-x 2 stops routinely as well as tmy. Hey, the negs are 6x7, whats a little grain among friends compared to those tiny 35mm negs.

[eric friedemann]

"I think Kodak states in the fine print that their 3200 film is really 1600 that can be pushed."

 

 

TMAX 3200 has an ISO rating and a DX setting of 800.

[gaius1]

<blockquote>TMAX 3200 has an ISO rating and a DX setting of 800</blockquote>In 135 TMZ correctly registers itself as 3200 with DX (tried this in 3 different Nikon bodies) and I don't think it's available in 120, or if it is I haven't seen it.

[eric friedemann]

1. I've never had TMAX 3200 yield a DX rating of 3200.

 

 

2. I've not seen TMAX 3200 in 120 either.

[raymond_petty1]

I think I've read in the past on this forum that you would be bettr off pushing one of the 400 speed emulsions as opposed to pulling the Delta higher speed emulsion.

Anecdotally, I've pushed Delta 400 a single stop from time to time and been happy with the results.

[scott ream]

I've shot several rolls of Delta 3200 (35mm)at 1600 and developed normally with ok results. It really depends on the subject. Needed a little work when printing hiwever. I really wish Fuji would make Neopan 1600 available in roll form.